The three studies all paint the same picture: The revenues for the record companies have dropped by about half in the last decade, but at the same time, revenues for artists have gone up. The links above are to short articles summarizing the studies. In each case, the article contains further links to references.

An article in the Economist from last year, ”What’s working in music”, references studies from several countries, and concludes that although record sales are down, revenues from live performances have increased dramatically, in a way that more than compensates for the drop in sales of recorded music.

The Dutch studyUps and downs – Economic and cultural effects of file sharing on music, film and games (2009) takes a combined look at different cultural genres. It shows that between 1999 and 2007, revenues have increased for all of them, except music recordings. For the music industry, this study only looks at recorded music, and does not examine income for artists from other sources, such as concerts. This means that the study only confirms the negative trend for recorded music in line with the Swedish, Norwegian, and UK studies above, but leaves the part of the music sector that has made up for this outside the scope of the study.

A Harvard study from 2009 takes a look at the wider implications of file sharing for society, and finds that since the advent of file sharing, both the number of music albums and films released per year have increased. Canadian law professor Michael Geist summarizes the study under the heading Harvard Study Finds Weaker Copyright Protection Has Benefited Society.

Ten years ago, when file sharing on a massive scale on the Internet was a relatively new phenomenon (Napster came in 1999), it was not at all self-evident if and how the cultural sector would survive financially in the new era. But now we have more than a decade’s experience of a world where anybody who wants can download whatever they want for free, and where a large portion of the population routinely does.

We now know from experience that the cultural sector is financially sustainable despite rampant p2p file sharing. What may have appeared to be an insoluble problem a decade ago, has turned out not to be a problem at all, but in fact a huge opportunity for artists and creators, and a boon for sustainable cultural diversity.

It is still very difficult to make a living as an artist, it always has been, and it always will be. But at least it has become a little bit easier than it was before the Internet and p2p file sharing. In the music business, total revenues have increased slightly, while the big record companies are getting a smaller piece of the pie. This has left more money for the creative people who actually make the music (rather than just distribute it).

File sharing is not a problem that needs to be solved. It is something that is positive for both artists, consumers, and society as a whole. All we need to do now is to get copyright legislation in line with this new and positive reality.

By reforming copyright to legalize p2p file sharing that is done without direct commercial intent, we can put an end to the criminalization of an entire generation, while at the same time improving conditions for a vibrant cultural sector in Europe.

Share this:

Gilla

Relaterat

49 kommentarer

Informative and encouraging. Very nice to see that the actual artists, game- and movie-makers are adapting and thriving. (I wonder how long it will take until ntp arrives and begins posting the same old drivel yet another time…)

Nice figures, but what’s missing is an explanation for the phenomenon. Explain how rampant file-sharing puts -more- money (not less) than before into the pockets of the artists. Explain how artists make money by giving away their works for free.

”Explain how rampant file-sharing puts -more- money (not less) than before into the pockets of the artists.”

Because people buy more music, often directly from the artists, and go to more concerts, since they can much more easily find and figure out what they like.

”Explain how artists make money by giving away their works for free.”

Because people buy more music, often directly from the artists, and go to more concerts, since they can much more easily find and figure out what they like.

Same question twice, in different words. Same answer twice.

Despite what the music industry wants people and lawmakers (in particular) to believe, a digital version of a song or an album being available for download – freely or not, legally or not – does not lead to people spending less money on music in various forms. The same holds for the game and movie industries.

What happens is that there is a shift in where and how the money is spent, so that more goes to the artists and less to the distributors. Just as it should be, since we all – well, all except for certain parts of the industries and their shills – want to promote the artists, and pirates tend to do so in particular. There are a few free-loaders, but the spenders are many, many more.

This, of course, greatly upsets the distributors and their shills, since they can’t leech quite as much from the artists as they’re used to. And this is where we are today. Artists thriving. Distributors hurting, and fighting the present and the future with any means possible, and then some.

@Lars: Somewhere I read that it’s because the publicity the p2p gives to a good artist. People go more to concerts because they know they are not going to be fed some garbage and they even go to see an artist they would never hear of because he’s totally ignored by the record companies. Of course, it doesn’t work so well for a bad artist.😉 And of course, it’s not the concerts the record companies will make money from.

”In general one can say, however, that the vast majority of studies show that the free download from file sharing networks affect the purchase of recorded music negatively. Common sense supports the course, the thesis.”

Lars, it’s not the politicians’ job to ensure maximum profit for the artists. If we really must have laws to incentivise creation, they shouldn’t hand away anything more than is totally necessary — if artists are making money even in the presence of filesharing, there’s no reason to destroy filesharing.

”BUT, with that not said that there are no positive results due to file sharing.”

Also take note of the comments, which nuance the findings quite a bit, and include comments from the article author as well. I (obviously) will not translate all of those. Again, at the link provided in #5.

Well, I have no idea how ”unbiased” this person is while doing his study, but he might be correct that ”selling music” is getting ever more difficult nowadays. That is because it simply has no value to try and ”sell” something that can be copied and distributed for free (without too much hassle). Sales may go down, but the artists apparently get a larger part of the money spent – that is ultimately a good thing for the economy as a whole.

That’s right – people nowadays readily pay for the artist’s _new_ work, such as live concerts, not the old work such as records. You got to do new work to be paid. Sounds strange? Well that’s what most of us in society are already doing. I am expected to do new work every month to be paid by my boss… I guess most of us are. If that requires artists to do ”live” work, so be it, if they can be sponsored to do new music, that’s fine too, but requiring to pay for the old work just doesn’t work any more. I think everyone understands that if an artist doesn’t get any money, she/he can’t do new work professionally. So it’s up to the fans – if they don’t pay, they may not get more of their favourite artists work. In the end you can’t of course be sure to have tomorrows ”lunches” for ”free”.

Trying to make money exclusively on the ”old work” may well be a dying business as pointed out by Christian’s earlier posts about the terrible situation for the record companies. There may have been no better way to do this ”small scale” music/culture/art business before the internet, but now there sure is.

Apparently people still find the artist’s work ( be it live or otherwise ) valuable so saying the record companies or the copy right laws ”protect” the artists is just koblaj. =)

I don’t give much credit to the conclusions made by these studies and the conclusions made by ”Pirate MEP”.

There are many questions unanswered:
– Some studies are compensated for inflation, some are not
– How many artists share these revenues now and 10 years ago? How are these revenues distributed?

Another point is that it’s likely that revenues from live performances go to very few and popular artists and that all artist are not comfortable with performing live or are not good at it. And what about books, shall the authors have to recite their books for money to get an income?

Direct commercial intent, what’s that? p2p file sharing is done in a commercial scale with millions of download and potential loss of income to the creators. It doesn’t matter what you call it, it’s similar to theft. The downloaders can listen to the music, watch the movies etc. for free instead of paying, robbing the artists of their income.

”we can put an end to the criminalization of an entire generation”

Always someone else’s fault, right? In my opinion, its ”the entire generation” that criminalizes itself by breaking the law. With your type of reasoning, we also have criminalization of all citizens that are guilty of speeding so why not get rid of those laws too? In your opinion, the individual seems to have no responsibility at all, do whatever you like and see what happens. If many individuals are breaking the laws, the laws shall be removed. But this is not logical, laws against shoplifting, speeding etc. will not be removed even if 100% are breaking them.

”I don’t give much credit to the conclusions made by these studies and the conclusions made by ”Pirate MEP”.”

Of course you don’t. Anything else would be highly surprising.

”There are many questions unanswered:
– Some studies are compensated for inflation, some are not
– How many artists share these revenues now and 10 years ago? How are these revenues distributed?”

Two questions are many? Very well.

How about the conclusions made by studies commissioned by the music industry? Are there no unanswered questions in those? Have you looked? Have you asked those questions as well? No?

”Another point is that it’s likely that revenues from live performances go to very few and popular artists and that all artist are not comfortable with performing live or are not good at it.”

Likely according to whom?

”And what about books, shall the authors have to recite their books for money to get an income?”

Are book sales hurting? I have seen no conclusive evidence for that.

”Direct commercial intent, what’s that?”

Direct commercial intent is to sell the work of others for profit, without their permission.

”p2p file sharing is done in a commercial scale with millions of download and potential loss of income to the creators.”

Potential, but apparently not actual.

”It doesn’t matter what you call it, it’s similar to theft.”

It’s not theft, and it’s not similar to theft. Of course it matters what you call it. That’s why there are entire separate sets of laws governing the different cases. Copyright infringement is copyright infringement. Theft is theft. The only reason you and the likes of you prefer to use the word theft is to provoke an emotional response. Exactly the same – distasteful – reason why you misuse the word rape. Be honest when arguing, or prepare to be called on it, every time.

”The downloaders can listen to the music, watch the movies etc. for free instead of paying, robbing the artists of their income.”

But they don’t rob the artists of their income, now, do they? Quite the opposite, in fact.

”Always someone else’s fault, right?”

That’s what the music industry position is, yes. It’s always the damn pirates’ fault, isn’t it? It’s never any question, never any evaluation of business idea, business methods, product packaging, product quality, or anything remotely related to the music industry itself. No, it’s always someone else’s fault.

I don’t give much credit to the conclusions made by these studies and the conclusions made by ”Pirate MEP”.

No surprise there…

So let’s see what you could possibly have for arguments against these extensive studies all coming to the same conclusion as each other and all in line with what pirates have long said.

There are many questions unanswered:

Really? Yet you only come up with three points and two questions, all of them being irrelevant sidetracks to the discussion?

– Some studies are compensated for inflation, some are not

So what? The bigger picture is the same. Even so, you can easily adjust for inflation yourself if you are so convinced that it would radically change anything, but it won’t. This point is just a weak sidetrack to the discussion.

– How many artists share these revenues now and 10 years ago? How are these revenues distributed?

These questions are totally irrelevant for the claims that these reports as well as Engström makes. The claims deals with artists as a group and not as individuals. This is yet another sidetrack to the actual discussion, making it a 2-0 win for sidetracks from your side.

Another point is that it’s likely that revenues from live performances go to very few and popular artists (…)

This is a pure nonsense argument. Popular artists sell more CDs in the same way that popular artists earn more revenues from live performances. You see, it’s all connected to ones individual skills. Do you deny this simple fact? Do you deny the simple fact that you have to be good to make money?

(…)and that all artist are not comfortable with performing live or are not good at it.

If they are not comfortable with performing live they should choose another way of earning money. It’s really as simple as that. They have to find working business models that suits them. This is no different than what everyone else have to do.

And what about books, shall the authors have to recite their books for money to get an income?

If they want to earn money from their books it’s their responsibility to find a modern business model that works in the modern times that we now live in. Everyone else has to.

p2p file sharing is done in a commercial scale with millions of download and potential loss of income to the creators. It doesn’t matter what you call it, it’s similar to theft.

No it isn’t. Arguing that individuals copying and sharing readily available information with each other is the same as stealing something from someone is a logical abomination.

The downloaders can listen to the music, watch the movies etc. for free instead of paying, robbing the artists of their income.

Not at all. If you had analyzed the text that you are replying you would have come to the conclusion that, even if it were possible to rob someone by copying and sharing readily available information, it would be logically impossibly to rob someone of something that they don’t have any rights to. Do you deny this simple fact? Do you deny that the reform mentioned above would take away the artificial right of stealing regular people´s freedoms and rights when it comes to sharing information without direct commercial intent? Do you deny the simple fact that this theft of people´s freedoms and rights is the only theft here?

”we can put an end to the criminalization of an entire generation”

Always someone else’s fault, right?

No? Engström merely pointed out that we can put an end to this nonsense of stealing people´s freedoms and rights, when it’s evident that it’s not even needed, simply by reforming the outdated copyright laws.

In my opinion, its ”the entire generation” that criminalizes itself by breaking the law. With your type of reasoning, we also have criminalization of all citizens that are guilty of speeding so why not get rid of those laws too? In your opinion, the individual seems to have no responsibility at all, do whatever you like and see what happens.

Engström has never argued that any laws that are broken should be removed. You are only being dishonest and quite frankly ridiculous in your argumentation. Can’t you just stop with these silly strawman-arguments already and back up your claims with some substance instead?

If many individuals are breaking the laws, the laws shall be removed. But this is not logical, laws against shoplifting, speeding etc. will not be removed even if 100% are breaking them.

You just confirmed that you are a big fan of dictatorship as opposed to democracy. If 100% of the people are breaking a law the law clearly does not reflect the will of the people and should be removed immediately. The only way of enforcing such a law, having absolutely no respect from the people, would be tyranny. Isn’t your world view wonderful?

First of all it’s interesting to note that you, as per usual manner, chose to totally ignore the arguments that are most relevant to the discussion and the ones that clearly expose your use of totally illogical constructions to aid with your anti-pirate propaganda, to instead focus on the parts where you can mark words and over exaggerate.

”You just confirmed that you are a big fan of dictatorship as opposed to democracy.”

I’m not, Mr straw man.

Yes you did. You are implying that it would be illogical to remove laws with absolutely no respect from the people, and which are constantly broken by 100% of the people. By not removing those utterly useless laws and instead enforcing them you are actually creating a dictator-relationship towards the people.

On top of that. If you believe that I somehow misunderstood you; you are free to clarify your writings. But it can only be viewed as highly ironical that you instead are resorting to flawed argumentation, in this case ”Ad-Hominem”, when accusing people of similar actions. The irony expands considering your regular uses of strawmen yourself, and one don’t have to scroll far up to find your last one.

”If 100% of the people are breaking a law the law clearly does not reflect the will of the people and should be removed immediately.”

I believe that 100% of drivers are speeding, some more often than others. Do you disagree?

To answer you with the same low standard as your question. No, I don’t for a moment believe that 100% of all drivers are speeding in a given moment of time.

On a more serious note, I will clarify this for you so you don’t have to go any more offtopic and can cease with the exaggerations. The context above with 100% of the people breaking the law should obviously be read as constantly breaking the law out of disrespect, not people spontaneously breaking the law in contrast with their own beliefs (as your example of speeding often implies).

”The only way of enforcing such a law, having absolutely no respect from the people, would be tyranny. Isn’t your world view wonderful?”

It’s not my world,

If it’s not your world view then you need to revise your writings so that they match your actual world view. I can’t be blamed if you post sloppy formulated writings that don’t correspond with what you really believe.

it’s just one of your typical straw man arguments.

I don’t have any typical strawman arguments since I as a rule don’t resort to such subpar argumentation methods. If you should ever come across one you are free to bring them up and argue for your accusations.

Mmnyeah.. but what about bands/artists who aren’t touring bands? What about those electronic musicians/new age mood music producers who labour in garages/at their synthesizers to produce that new and special sound? What about, say, Vangelis, or Mike Oldfield? Would the latter have made much out of his hit Tubular Bells if it were produced today, under today’s conditions? I think it would have been a pity if he hadn’t.

And what about retirement income and what creators are to live on in their old age? This argument voiced by someone that artists should have to continually produce new art to earn a crust is, frankly, piffle. The creative spirit is not to be bound by 9-to-5 work practices! That’s the whole point!

Well, it’s nice if more money *is* going these days to the artists, rather than the labels, but I’d really need to see more elucidation of that model.. I think it’s probably true though that it’s now easier for unknown artists to publicize themselves.

And what about retirement income and what creators are to live on in their old age?

The pension system and savings like the rest of the population?

This argument voiced by someone that artists should have to continually produce new art to earn a crust is, frankly, piffle.

They don’t actually have to create new art every day, do they? They can perform or sell their art as well. It’s really not much different than other professions where creativity plays a big role for the person himself or for the company that he works for.

The creative spirit is not to be bound by 9-to-5 work practices! That’s the whole point!

And yet there is just that, creative spirits working 9-to-5 shifts in various companies around the world that day after day fuels the technological advancements of the entire human race? Why would an artist need to be treated differently?

Hmm so my comment went through, good! (I thought Opera Mini had let me down again as it said the cache was full or something..)

Well I was going to say: I think Pirate Party is a good idea: but it needs to extend its remit and work out some other things: like, for example, how to get money INTO the pockets of young (and other) people so that they can flipping afford to actually BUY things? They can’t go to the supermarket for free, you know!
🙂

And it was the increase in the disposable income of youth after WWII that caused the massive upsurge in popular music and pop culture. At least that’s what I read at school!

We were much happier in the West when we were all well off: notwithstanding Vietnam wars and atomic bombs!

Sort that one out!

As for you Professor: I think you are a bit naive, or shallow. Pensions, whether private or company (do those exist any more?) are these days a big and unfunny joke: they certainly are in the UK and they will be, increasingly in the US – if the loony Right continue to.

You are comparing just anybody who pen-pushes in an office to those who do really creative work: ex nihilo you might say: apples and oranges.

Performing is an act of creation as well: next you’re gonna be asking TV actors to give up their residuals!

You lot won’t find it so nice if corporations start acting as you advocate consumers to..

I have a feeling the prof’s argument is just trying to drag everybody down to the same level.. I assume the creative people he means are people like programmers, who he resents not getting paid like intellectual property holders? But if they actually create games or design major aspects of software, don’t they?

Why shouln’t artists have to put aside money for their pension like everyone else? Especially since the often earn a hell of a lot more than the average person. What makes them so special that they need to get paid for old work without any demand of having to produce more?

I would love to be able to dig a ditch, and get paid for this work for several years. If you decide to become an artist, it is up to you to ensure you can have a stable income. If you can’t, you probably shouldn’t be an artist in the first place. Get a real job like everyone else.

–> As for you Professor: I think you are a bit naive, or shallow. Pensions, whether private or company (do those exist any more?) are these days a big and unfunny joke: they certainly are in the UK and they will be, increasingly in the US – if the loony Right continue to.

Well, you completely missed my point here. It wasn’t about the pension system itself. Read what I wrote one more time with emphasis on ”like the rest of the population”. Whether the pension system is good or bad is completely irrelevant for my point.

–> You are comparing just anybody who pen-pushes in an office to those who do really creative work: ex nihilo you might say: apples and oranges.

No. I’m comparing creative spirits with creative spirits, which is evident by reading my comment. Once again, read it again.

–> Performing is an act of creation as well: next you’re gonna be asking TV actors to give up their residuals!

TV actors, as well as employees in other fields of work, negotiates the terms with their employer, not me.

–> You lot won’t find it so nice if corporations start acting as you advocate consumers to..

Well, I haven’t even discussed consumers with you. A little clarification would be in order here.

–> I have a feeling the prof’s argument is just trying to drag everybody down to the same level..

Is it not allowed to question why artists among others needs to be treated differently than other creative minds in our society? Because that is what I have been doing with objective and on-topic arguments, while your comment above is neither. Ironic, isn’t it?

–> I assume the creative people he means are people like programmers, who he resents not getting paid like intellectual property holders? But if they actually create games or design major aspects of software, don’t they?

There are a lot of professions with creative minds, programmers are only one of them. If you are a good programmer you will get paid. Where is the problem according to you?

Also, you didn’t answer the question why artists need to be treated differently:
”And yet there is just that, creative spirits working 9-to-5 shifts in various companies around the world that day after day fuels the technological advancements of the entire human race? Why would an artist need to be treated differently?”

& obviously my arguments are plenty on-topic, otherwise you wouldn’t bother responding to them at such length!

Apples and oranges: I mean someone who actually *creates* something: some whole thing, some intellectual entity or complete product that is new: Harry Potter, Grand Theft Auto, Superman/Batman (actually, old-time comics creators were among the most shabbily treated creative artists EVER, ever; and this is because of the low level of importance/status AND the weak intellectual property rights of creators in that industry: Siegel or Shuster’s widow is still suing Warner to this day!), the format for the internationally successful quiz show Who Wants To Be A Millionaire, or the patent of the Dyson vacuum cleaner: all these things constitute new inventions: and are thusly qualitatively different from the work of a janitor or a commercial artist drawing what his/her bosses tell him/her to draw; or a firm’s engineer or sth..

..however hardworking, valiant, technically competent etc they may be! (Actually though: most firms in the English-speaking world have some sort of clause in their employment contracts, to say anything conceived of or invented by the employee ”on the job” is the property of the firm’s! Now I think THAT is unfair: and I would move to strike that from UK/US law, as I think a person’s ideas are their own! Yes, truly.

(Oh: and you do know that in this case, the idea conceived of doesn’t have to be anything to do with the project the employee is actually paid to work on?!)

All this stuff about ”actors have to determine their own terms of employment”.. actually, this is usually done on the big scale, vis-a-vis intellectual property, by actors’ UNIONS, which quite recently had a substantial defeat in US. Actors’ residuals in digital media are poorly protected.

And your shtick that pensions don’t come into the argument? More naievete – how old are you??

Yeah: this idea that all members of the working/producing classes should be uniformly cast down into the abyss, no matter how talented, at the mercy of the oh-so-generous pension providers.. with that attitude we’d never have had Mick Jagger, say: and I suppose you think that John Lennon should have had to rely on UK or US Social Security.. THAT idea doesn’t help the masses; it just drags down those who have the talent to make it out of the ranks of the have-nots.

You’re a dragger-downer: no Prometheus, from what I have heard!

And corporations will, eventually, just LOVE what you have to say: about creative people having no property rights or moral rights in what they create. THAT’s what you all DON’T see!

Attack things like the rights of corporate personhood and maybe you’ll be talking.

But ultimately I basically think that libertarian ideas however attractive to youth, geeks etc, are deficient in all the wrong places: and it’s socialism we need.

Anyway: I still suspect the ”poncy artists are definitely not worth all those royalties and are worth no more than we progress-driving engineers” line to be some kind of sour grapes, really! In THAT line I see the sentiment that the geeks want to be the rock-stars; and if they can’t (why? wasn’t Brunel a ”rock star”?) they want to drag down the conditions of all of those creative types!

”& obviously my arguments are plenty on-topic, otherwise you wouldn’t bother responding to them at such length!”

It wasn’t your comments that were in question there, but rather one particular comment, which was in fact pointed out for you. That particular comment were not on topic.

”And your shtick that pensions don’t come into the argument? More naievete – how old are you??”

As I have already told you before, I weren’t talking about the pension systems themselves. I tried to clarify this to you by writing:

” Well, you completely missed my point here. It wasn’t about the pension system itself. Read what I wrote one more time with emphasis on ”like the rest of the population”. Whether the pension system is good or bad is completely irrelevant for my point.”

Since you once again have failed to actually read and comprehend my first statement, as well as the clarification, my point were that creators in their old age will have to live on pensions and savings like everyone else. Was that clear enough? Or do you still feel the urge to resort to completely irrelevant ”Ad-Hominem”-arguments?

”creative people having no property rights or moral rights in what they create”

That is exactly right. They have no PROPERTY rights since we are talking about IP. They do however have IP rights, and most jurisdictions also recognise moral rights. So claiming creators have no moral rights is just plain wrong.

Professor: So, you’re going to claim that one small point I made is somehow ”off-topic”? How anal! Way worse than the UK Guardian mods! Which one, anyway? I don’t sweat the small stuff!🙂

”Whether the pension system is good or bad is totally irrelevant for my point”.. see, you refuse to look at the big picture. Whether the pension system is good or bad should be irrelevant to NOBODY’s political argument. Else this all descends into hypocritical Ayn Randianism: political philistinism.

After all, we’re talking about some kind of social justice, aren’t we? If you want to attack a feature of current society such as IP rights, which had to be fought for in a more wild west earlier era of capitalism. Charles Dickens didn’t appreciate his lack of such overseas rights.

(& artistic creators, unlike anal engineers, don’t have the personalities to be careful about pensions and good at investments. As far as I am aware this goes particularly for musicians. You say my arguments are ad hominem: well yours are based on.

”Professor: So, you’re going to claim that one small point I made is somehow ”off-topic”? How anal! Way worse than the UK Guardian mods! Which one, anyway? I don’t sweat the small stuff! :)”

Once again, if you go back and actually read what I wrote, the context of the text, the actual text being replied to, it will be obvious that I were simply pointing out the irony of your accusation.

” ”Whether the pension system is good or bad is totally irrelevant for my point”.. see, you refuse to look at the big picture. Whether the pension system is good or bad should be irrelevant to NOBODY’s political argument. Else this all descends into hypocritical Ayn Randianism: political philistinism.”

No I don’t. The subject of the matter isn’t the pension system, is it? Unless you think that retiring artists somehow needs other pension systems than other retiring people? If not, well then the pension system is completely irrelevant for our current discussion.

”After all, we’re talking about some kind of social justice, aren’t we? If you want to attack a feature of current society such as IP rights, which had to be fought for in a more wild west earlier era of capitalism. Charles Dickens didn’t appreciate his lack of such overseas rights.”

Of course I want to reform the copyright laws to fit the modern world, who wouldn’t? Defending a state-sanctioned monopoly which attacks and limits ordinary people´s rights and freedoms without in turn demanding actual proof of it being necessary to uphold the purpose of copyright, well that just doesn’t make sense anymore.

”(& artistic creators, unlike anal engineers, don’t have the personalities to be careful about pensions and good at investments. As far as I am aware this goes particularly for musicians. ”

That’s not true. People are different, even if they share the same professions. Some people will get interested in making investments themselves, and some will let their banks do it for them (pensions, funds, etc).

”You say my arguments are ad hominem: ”

No. Once again it’s one particular argument that is in question. And that argument is also the one that I quoted when I enlightened you about your argumentation fallacy.

” well yours are based on expecting everybody to be like yourselves! Which in the case of musicians, particularly, ain’t gonna work! You can’t know many musicians.)”

Until there are valid arguments put forth against piracy which carry more weight than the many benefits provided by file-sharing, there is no reason to ever lend any credence to the irrational smear campaigns against file-sharing by defending your actions against these claims. Your actions are already valid and need no defense.

Sharing is an innate human quality. It is the way of the human species to share. There is no individual reading this now whose entire life is not thoroughly dependent upon the ideas, language, methods, designs and creations of those who came before us. Copyright or not, we benefit from these because of our most valuable tools for survival, our ability to copy, create and share, which predates the existence of copyright by at least 200,000 years.

Beware of anyone who wants to limit your ability to copy, create or share. Any person or organization who seeks to stifle this human right is anti-human and ultimately threatens our welfare.

As with any concept or idea, there are many layers in the hierarchy upon which the idea is based on.

As I see it, the very fundamental idea of copyright is based on a spiritual delusion, which is that all humans are separate from one another, and you need to enforce your ”ownership” of ideas in much the same way.

I don’t think this idea holds any value any more in our day and age, since despite the fake myth that ”there just isn’t enough for everyone”, the opposite is quite true.

If humanity were just to use its technological ability, there would indeed be enough for everyone to thrive… ideas, technologies and other copyrights should be able to benefit everyone.

However, this philosophical delusion is happening on such an abstract level that it never gets addressed.

It’s the same way for other things that are used to ”divide and conquer” humanity through artificially conflicting dualities…